I think we can safely use this “troll” term sparingly in the “Comments on Cecil’s Columns” forum. I don’t have a dictionary here that defines it as we computer-types use it, but to me a “troll” on a message board is someone who purposely posts jibberish or offensive offal with the express purpose of getting your goat, pissing you off, or generally in some other way inappropriately manipulating others to react.
New posters who don’t read the rules, use poor grammar or spelling, post without providing links to the column, bring up topics that have already been discussed, etc. usually do not fall into the “troll” category, in my opinion. At least in this forum they haven’t.
Yeah, all those things can piss us off, but they are usually not intentional. I think this difference is important. I’m wondering if we can in the future refrain from public name-calling and gently lead these people onto the enlightened path? Maybe even using email to do this would be best.
Jill
(I can be pretty damn bad at following directions, too.)
Has someone here used the word “troll” to describe naive posts? I’ve only seen it used to describe someone posting with the intent of getting strong reactions. Using for the unwitting mistakes of newbies is the kind of grammatical sloppiness that shouldn’t fly here.
In my defense, what I tried to say was that I did not want to consider the OP the t-word, but that the tone struck me as churlish and uninformed. I attempted to bring that new seeker closer to The Light That Is Cecil in my own humble way, but perhaps that wasn’t the way it came off.
…but when you get blue, and you’ve lost all your dreams, there’s nothing like a campfire and a can of beans!
A good definition and etymology are available in “The on-line hacker Jargon File, version 4.2.0, 31 JAN 2000”, found at http://pebbles.eps.mcgill.ca/jargon/jargon.html . Sense 2 is substantially similar to Jill’s.
What I think happens is some newbie posts a poor post, and a reg decides that newbies aren’t that stupid, and it’s somebody doing it on purpose, and thus a troll.
I think some of the regs are a little too fast to assign that label to some people.
Let’s all strive to be more forgiving, and less rash.
“I tHiNk U aL SuCk CuZ MArElYn VoS SaVaNt iZ MuCh SmArTeR TaN YuR CeCiL AdDaMs. I tHnK U WaNt AlL 2 B LiKe HeR”
The following are annoying, but not troll-specific:[ul][li]Poor grammar.[/li][li]Atrocious spelling.[/li][li]That darned alternating caps thing.[/li][li]Chat-room Shorthand (‘u’ for ‘you’; 2 for ‘to’; ‘b’ for ‘be’)[/ul][/li]
The following are troll specific:[ul][li]Makes an insulting/obviously false claim (in this case, both).[/li][li]Is posted in the wrong area, either disrupting a thread or a forum. (Insults to Cecil should go in The Pit.)[/ul][/li]
Following this are two questions:
1.) Does the poster stick around to continue discussion of his/her original statement? If so, it’s possible it’s just a rude, illiterate poster in need of education. If not, then we’ve been trolled.
2.) Does the poster place other questions or ill-fitting statements to other threads/forums? If so, again, it makes it more likely that it’s a troll.
That’s the general, rational consensus definition I try to use. But because it can be a gray area, it’s best not to shout “Troll!” until one is sure.
Sorry about the hijack, Jill.
JMCJ
Winner of the Mr. & Mrs. Polycarp Award for Literalizing Cliches for knowing an actual atheist in a foxhole.
Strictly within the bounds of this discussion I have a specific question. The answer to which could prove enlightening to me.
Can you “troll” in the Pit ?
Isn’t the Pit, by its very nature, supposed to be a place of inflammatory statements, and other posts put there for the specific purpose of “getting someones goat” ?
Thanks in advance for the input.
“A single lifetime, even though entirely devoted to the sky, would not be enough for the investigation of so vast a subject.” - Seneca
I went to that page. It’s quite possibly the longest page I’ve ever scrolled down. WHEW!
It’s not necessarily a phenomenon new to the SDMB. DrFidelius thought I was a troll when I first posted in the “Kansas vote on Evolution” thread in Great Debates and trolled me right back and fooled me for a long time before I finally caught on. (I kept asking about inconsistencies in the first chapter of Genesis and he responded as if he were a Christian old-Earth Creationist. Now that I look back on it, it’s pretty funny.)
BTW, I’m STILL asking creationists those questions. Check out “Light before the Sun” in Great Debates. And they STILL won’t admit Genesis is flawed. Oh, well, some say hopeless causes are the only ones worth fighting for.
(Go on, CK, tell me again that Genesis is poetry. I think even poetry should have some logic to it.)
The Pit is intended for disagreements that get too heated for rational discussion; those involved can take the disagreement to the Pit without continuing to disrupt the thread it started in.
Posters also use to discuss issues (both on and off the board) that upset them–issues that they feel are likely to end up in the Pit so they may as well start them there.
Your Official Cat Goddess since 10/20/99.
Thunder’s just a noise, boys; lightning does the work. --C. Brock
(Typos attack!)